1942's Best Picture winner, the first of three to be directed by William Wyler. Since I recently did that post about the most successful actors' directors, with Wyler in the #1 spot, and I've been looking into past BP winners, I decided to watch one of his films. This film is an interesting case since while it was released in mid-1942, it was developed in 1941, when America was not yet at war. Wyler and co. were out to rally the American public to the Allied cause. Despite this, unlike a lot of films from the era, it doesn't feel especially propagandistic (it closes with a big speech, but it feels fairly natural). There was a war on, after all.

Great acting from everybody, with the standouts being Greer Garson (as the title character), Teresa Wright, Dame May Whitty, and Walter Pidgeon (who was also in the previous year's BP winner, How Green Was My Valley; and he looks uncannily like Jon Hamm). There's also an appearance by Henry Travers (It's A Wonderful Life's Clarence), and if a more loveable-looking old man ever lived, I'd be surprised. For the time period, the production values and special effects are surprisingly good (I'm thinking especially of the Dunkirk flotilla seen in the Thames).

This is a sequel to the Dracula 2000 film that makes Vlad the Impaler only ONE of many aliases. Dracula here in this series goes back much further in time and if you haven't seen I'll not say who Dracula is but it does give a plausible reason as to why silver affects vamps.

This series plays up ALL the lore, that I can tell, associated with vamps. For that reason, among others, I like this series and will watch the third installment soon.

It's a fairly straight forward script but as far as DDVD movies go it's up there at the top in terms of quality and execution.

^^^
You saw it at night, in TX for $4.75!!!! Do you have some type of student/military or other discount? Cause a non-discounted night show is $10.50 here in Nashville, TN. I'm jealous if that is the standard rate. Hell I'd be seeing way more theatrical movies if it were that way here.

I was perusing FutureShop the other day and came across a Blu-Ray pack of the Man With No Name trilogy for $29.99, which seemed like a pretty good deal, since the same store had a Blu-Ray of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly for $19.99.

Anyway, this is about as good as a bog-standard Western gets, I think - by which I mean, it's pretty much a distilled gunfighter story without really any themes or characterization. The movie made Clint Eastwood a star, and you can see why, because even with the preceding issues, he always commands your attention and is fun to watch.

Not as good as Dr. No, but better than From Russia With Love, Goldfinger has some great moments. It looks absolutely outstanding on Blu-ray. I love the short scene with Moneypenny and any scene with Oddjob is fun. The tune is catchy as well.

I'm going to be going through the Bond movies I haven't seen (quite a few.)

This finally made it's way up my Netflix queue but only cause Dracula III is on short wait. I had to see this for a few reasons one of which was 'can Kristin stretch her "acting" skills beyond boring Lana", NOPE!! Sometimes I watch a movie that I've heard was horrible and don't either fully agree or agree at all. This movie did not accomplish that. It was pretty much everything I'd heard about it.

The dialogue was uninspiring as was the delivery. Not sure if that is a chicken/egg syndrome or not. Those voiceovers during the movie by Kruek were so bland. I'm thinking that is just her 'style' cause she delivers Lana on Smallville the same bland way. I don't think she's been directed to appear melancholic that many times.

The only saving grace of the movie is that a couple of the fight scenes were tolerable. However, the final scene where she uses her 'chi' power and then does this physics defying neck snap were laughable.

The witty connection at the end where Gen shows her the Street Fighter flyer and says, "I'm told a great fighter there named Ryu...something is someone we should look into recruiting" was unfortunately also a highlight. Lets face it, when that qualifies as a highlight that tells you a lot right there.

I was perusing FutureShop the other day and came across a Blu-Ray pack of the Man With No Name trilogy for $29.99, which seemed like a pretty good deal, since the same store had a Blu-Ray of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly for $19.99.

Anyway, this is about as good as a bog-standard Western gets, I think - by which I mean, it's pretty much a distilled gunfighter story without really any themes or characterization. The movie made Clint Eastwood a star, and you can see why, because even with the preceding issues, he always commands your attention and is fun to watch.

Click to expand...

I caught the same set on a sale from Amazon over the Holidays for $14.99 and picked it up also. I watched all 3 for the first time and didn't regret the blind buy either. Eastwood does command your attention cause you aren't quite sure if he's going to shoot, dare the other guy to act first or deliver a line of irreverence.

Yeah, but Canada has Best Buy too. I didn't like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", but I plan to at least watch the first movie in its trilogy at some point. I hope it's better. I haven't had a lot of luck with westerns so far. I just saw "High Noon", and I liked it more than most westerns I've seen, but not all the way through (there were parts when I got restless).

The four things that made the movie worth watching were Gary Cooper's performance, the church scene, the female characters (much tougher and more interesting that most women characters in westerns, if they have women at all), and the very entertaining and well-shot shootout the end. The church scene was hilarious! To those who have seen this movie, did that scene remind anyone else of those town hall meetings or mob scenes on "The Simpsons"?

With all these different people yelling out amusingly frantic comments one after another, I couldn't help but think of that. There's even one woman who practically yells, "Will someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?" I wonder if this scene inspired those bits on "The Simpsons".

Yeah, but Canada has Best Buy too. I didn't like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", but I plan to at least watch the first movie in its trilogy at some point. I hope it's better. I haven't had a lot of luck with westerns so far. I just saw "High Noon", and I liked it more than most westerns I've seen, but not all the way through (there were parts when I got restless).

The four things that made the movie worth watching were Gary Cooper's performance, the church scene, the female characters (much tougher and more interesting that most women characters in westerns, if they have women at all), and the very entertaining and well-shot shootout the end. The church scene was hilarious! To those who have seen this movie, did that scene remind anyone else of those town hall meetings or mob scenes on "The Simpsons"?

With all these different people yelling out amusingly frantic comments one after another, I couldn't help but think of that. There's even one woman who practically yells, "Will someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?" I wonder if this scene inspired those bits on "The Simpsons".

Click to expand...

I watched High Noon last year; thought it was pretty good.

In terms of westerns, I don't know if you've seen Kevin Costner's Open Range, but if not I'd recommend it.

The American: I'm glad an actor like George Clooney exists in Hollywood, because his star status is probably the only thing that gets films like this made. It is basically an art film, with an odd moment of violence, that is beautifully photographed (not surprisingly, the director has a strong background in still photography) and acted (mainly by Clooney, who is in almost every scene in the movie). Clooney plays an ageing hit-man/weapons manufacturer who is starting to regret the life he's made for himself. It sounds like an overplayed premise, but the film manages to tell it in a way that is quite thoughtful.

One of the more notable things about it is how successful the studio was in tricking people into seeing it by presenting it as a more conventional thriller. This resulted in a very nice gross for a super-low-budget art film, but a really awful CinemaScore rating.

The second film in the trilogy. It's okay, but I didn't enjoy it quite as much; if the first one was pretty much a stripped-down story about Clint Eastwood being badass, this one introduces a lot of additional elements and takes a few stabs at having emotional resonance, but they aren't sufficiently developed to really work. Lee Van Cleef as Colonel Mortimer has good presence, I will say. Also, the continued obvious disconnect between the dialogue and the actors' mouthes in a lot of places is distracting.

Also watched WALL-E again, since my nine- and five-year-old cousins were visiting and they hadn't seen it. Still one of the top films of the last decade.

Another Sandler film I'm glad I didn't pay to see in the theater. I didn't have a spontaneous laughter moment till about 30-40 minutes into the movie. His films for me have been more hit than miss the past 7-8yrs. I think it's cause he does the same schtick in each movie, he only changes the focus.

By that I mean here he is doing stereotypes with Arabs, Jews and Rednecks and incorporating his standard penis, boob, fart and bathroom jokes. I just saw Chuck & Larry a few weeks back and there it was the same "Sandler Standards" just using the Homosexual/Heterosexual stereotypes as the backdrop.

I have GrownUps in my queue a few films down and I'm sure it's going to be the same schtick just in the "reunion" format.

25. Book of the Dead (2005) - C. Ye gods this movie was boring. I elevated it a letter grade because of the artistry of the stop-motion, but it definitely wasn't my cup of tea. I think the story is intended as an allegory for Buddhist enlightenment, but actual meditation would probably have more entertainment value. Has one or two cool scenes, and a lot of exposition.

26. Megamind - B. Funny movie, if a little self-conscious. It's difficult not to compare this movie to The Incredibles, a comparison which only serves to highlight how much less is going on in this film. Still, it's a fun goofball romp if you don't over-analyze it.

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare Pixar to any animated film. Because of that, I made comparisons between Megamind and Despicable Me (Also came out last year) and found Megamind to be a much better movie.

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare Pixar to any animated film. Because of that, I made comparisons between Megamind and Despicable Me (Also came out last year) and found Megamind to be a much better movie.

Click to expand...

I agree, comparing it to The Incredibles really isn't fair, but they are superficially similar in tone and are both super hero satires, so I just found myself unable to stop making that comparison. This may just be me and how my mind works.

Despicable Me on the other hand was lampooning James Bond style villainy, something Pixar has not done before, and so it avoids those kind of comparisons. I also thought it was a better movie than Megamind, mainly because it was more original. (How To Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 are much better than either)